Mangold v. Dooley

• Decision Date: 07 June 1886
• Citation: 1 S.W. 126,89 Mo. 111
• Parties: MANGOLD v. DOOLEY, Defendant, and another, Garnishee and Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 S.W. 126

89 Mo. 111

MANGOLD v. DOOLEY, Defendant, and another, Garnishee and Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 7, 1886.

1. GARNISHMENT — SERVICE OF WRIT.

Under the laws of Missouri (section 2862, Revision 1879) a garnishee summons cannot be served by a constable specially deputized for that service.

2. SAME — RAILWAY COMPANY — GARNISHEE.

Under section 2521 of the same statute service of the summons on a railway company, when garnished, must be made on the nearest station agent.

3. SAME — EXEMPTIONS — WAGES.

Under section 2519 of the same statute the wages of a laborer for the last 30 days of his employment are not liable to attachment.

Appeal from Butler circuit court.

Proceedings in attachment and garnishment. Judgment for plaintiff. Exceptions and appeal by garnishee defendant.

T. J. Partis, for appellant, St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. S. H. Grove, for appellee, John Mangold.

RAY, J.

This action was commenced by attachment before a justice of the peace, in Butler county, Missouri, in February, 1882, against John Dooley, as defendant, and in which the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company was sought to be summoned as garnishee. On the return-day of the summons, there being no service of the summons on defendant, Dooley, the cause was continued to the thirty-first of March to obtain service, by notices posted up according to law. This being done on said day, judgment by default was given against defendant and garnishee. In due time the garnishee, appearing before the justice specially for that purpose only, moved the court to set aside the judgment as to it, and grant a new trial — First, because the service in this cause as to it was insufficient; second, because the court has no jurisdiction of the case; and, third, because the verdict was against the law and the evidence. This motion being overruled, the garnishee appealed to the circuit court, where the garnishee, again appearing solely for that purpose, in due form renewed its motion to dismiss the action for the want of legal service of the notice of garnishment, which being overruled, the garnishee in due form saved its exceptions to the action of the court in so doing; and upon trial de novo in the circuit court, judgment being again given against the garnishee, it brings the case here by appeal.

The service of the original writ of garnishment against the appellant, (garnishee,) as shown by the record, was by a special constable, and is as follows:

"I hereby certify that I served the within writ on the garnishee therein by leaving a true copy of the within writ to A. Skinner, as the station agent of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, at Harviell, in Beaver Dam township, county of Butler, and state of Missouri, on the twenty-second day of February, 1882.

                                                     "J. C. ROBERTS, Special Constable."
                

The record further shows that "to the interrogatories filed in the circuit court garnishee answered, in substance, that defendant, Dooley, was an employe of appellant, and that it did not owe him any money on account of wages due from garnishee to said defendant for more than the last thirty days' service as such employe previous to the service of said garnishment." The denial of the plaintiff admitted that defendant was an employe, but alleged that the...